- Test - lists.nanog.org

Ericsson / Marconi AHX ADSL2+
by Adam Armstrong 07 Aug '08

07 Aug '08

Hi All, Are any of you using Marconi/Ericsson AXH 2500 (or similar) MSANs for ADSL2+? Does anyone know much about setting up ADSL2+ to operate stabily with fastpath (trellis off) and adaptive runtime on? Any offlist help would be much appreciated! Thanks, adam.

1 0

gTLD root nameserver anomaly
by Ross Dmochowski 06 Aug '08

06 Aug '08

Something weird seems afoot in the root nameservers. I am noticing that the root nameservers are handing out extra info with TTLs much longer than those delineated in the respective zone file on the authoritative nameserver for that zone. Case in point: I asked my local DNS server for ns2.gamespy.com and it went directly to a gtld server (f.gtld-servers.net.) 08:25:27.541627 IP 172.19.2.15.45505 > 192.35.51.30.domain: 42289% [1au] A? ns2.gamespy.com. (44) 08:25:27.544415 IP 192.35.51.30.domain > 172.19.2.15.45505: 42289- 1/5/3 A 207.38.0.11 (229) and returned an answer with the larger TTL: dig ns2.gamespy.com ; <<>> DiG 9.2.4 <<>> ns2.gamespy.com ;; global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 37167 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 5, ADDITIONAL: 7 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;ns2.gamespy.com. IN A ;; ANSWER SECTION: ns2.gamespy.com. 172800 IN A 207.38.0.11 ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: gamespy.com. 172800 IN NS pdns4.ultradns.org. gamespy.com. 172800 IN NS pdns5.ultradns.info. gamespy.com. 172800 IN NS pdns1.ultradns.net. gamespy.com. 172800 IN NS pdns2.ultradns.net. gamespy.com. 172800 IN NS pdns3.ultradns.org. ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: pdns1.ultradns.net. 131158 IN A 204.74.108.1 pdns1.ultradns.net. 44758 IN AAAA 2001:502:f3ff::1 pdns2.ultradns.net. 131158 IN A 204.74.109.1 pdns3.ultradns.org. 44758 IN A 199.7.68.1 pdns4.ultradns.org. 44758 IN A 199.7.69.1 pdns4.ultradns.org. 44758 IN AAAA 2001:502:4612::1 pdns5.ultradns.info. 44758 IN A 204.74.114.1 ;; Query time: 4 msec ;; SERVER: 127.0.0.1#53(127.0.0.1) ;; WHEN: Wed Aug 6 08:25:27 2008 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 322 but if I ask an UltraDNS server directly...it returns the correct TTL dig @204.74.108.1 ns2.gamespy.com ; <<>> DiG 9.2.4 <<>> @204.74.108.1 ns2.gamespy.com ; (1 server found) ;; global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 23978 ;; flags: qr aa rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 6, ADDITIONAL: 0 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;ns2.gamespy.com. IN A ;; ANSWER SECTION: ns2.gamespy.com. 300 IN A 207.38.0.11 ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: gamespy.com. 300 IN NS PDNS6.ULTRADNS.CO.UK. gamespy.com. 300 IN NS PDNS5.ULTRADNS.INFO. gamespy.com. 300 IN NS PDNS4.ULTRADNS.ORG. gamespy.com. 300 IN NS PDNS3.ULTRADNS.ORG. gamespy.com. 300 IN NS PDNS2.ULTRADNS.NET. gamespy.com. 300 IN NS PDNS1.ULTRADNS.NET. but unfortunately, my nameserver honors (as expected) the TTL that came back from the initial request ;; ANSWER SECTION: ns2.gamespy.com. 172493 IN A 207.38.0.11 Another example would be 'gss1.foxtv.com'. I changed the IP for that server on Sunday night, and if you ask the authoritative nameservers (for IGN), they give you the correct response. However, when you do a trace, once can see that the gTLD server gives out its own info, which is not correct, and no one ever seems to get to the authoritative nameserver to get the appropriate information. -bash-2.05b$ dig +trace gss1.foxtv.com ; <<>> DiG 9.2.4 <<>> +trace gss1.foxtv.com ;; global options: printcmd . 1796 IN NS f.root-servers.net. . 1796 IN NS g.root-servers.net. . 1796 IN NS h.root-servers.net. . 1796 IN NS i.root-servers.net. . 1796 IN NS j.root-servers.net. . 1796 IN NS k.root-servers.net. . 1796 IN NS l.root-servers.net. . 1796 IN NS m.root-servers.net. . 1796 IN NS a.root-servers.net. . 1796 IN NS b.root-servers.net. . 1796 IN NS c.root-servers.net. . 1796 IN NS d.root-servers.net. . 1796 IN NS e.root-servers.net. ;; Received 332 bytes from 10.1.100.100#53(10.1.100.100) in 1 ms com. 172800 IN NS L.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. com. 172800 IN NS A.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. com. 172800 IN NS J.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. com. 172800 IN NS G.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. com. 172800 IN NS C.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. com. 172800 IN NS H.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. com. 172800 IN NS E.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. com. 172800 IN NS K.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. com. 172800 IN NS I.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. com. 172800 IN NS D.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. com. 172800 IN NS F.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. com. 172800 IN NS M.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. com. 172800 IN NS B.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. ;; Received 492 bytes from 192.5.5.241#53(f.root-servers.net) in 5 ms gss1.foxtv.com. 172800 IN A 63.241.173.211 foxtv.com. 172800 IN NS ns1.ign.com. foxtv.com. 172800 IN NS ns2.gamespy.com. foxtv.com. 172800 IN NS ns4.ign.com. ;; Received 162 bytes from 192.41.162.30#53(L.GTLD-SERVERS.NET) in 81 ms Anyone have any ideas of why I am seeing this? Any info would be greatly appreciated. Ross S. Dmochowski | Sr. Linux Administrator | Fox Interactive Media Desk: (415) 508-2230 | Cell: (415) 279-3761 | Fax: (415) 508-2001 | AIM: rossfim

2 2

RE: Is it time to abandon bogon prefix filters?
by Skywing 06 Aug '08

06 Aug '08

Then again, it does make Team Cymru an attractive target for DoS or even compromise if they can control routing policy to a degree for a large number of disparate networks. Especially if it gets in the way of for-profit spammers. (Not trying to knock them, just providing a for consideration. I would certainly hope and expect that Team Cymru would do their due dilligance in that respect, but it seems like an attractive central point of failure to attack to me.) - S (Sent via dumb phone mail client, apologies for any formatting badness). -----Original Message----- From: Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick(a)ianai.net> Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 11:59 To: NANOG list <nanog(a)nanog.org> Subject: Re: Is it time to abandon bogon prefix filters? On Aug 6, 2008, at 11:46 AM, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote: > Leo Bicknell wrote: > >> Have bogon filters outlived their use? Is it time to recommend >> people >> go to a simpler bogon filter (e.g. no 1918, Class D, Class E) that >> doesn't need to be updated as frequently? > > Seems like filtering against those could be done on the backplane, > so to speak. > > One of the things that has always puzzled me is this: > > In the default-free zone, why is necessary to filter _against_ > anybody? Seems like traffic for which there is no route would at > most be dumped to an error-log someplace. > > For folks with a default route, I have long advocated (with no > success what ever) filtering against stuff like the above, your own > networks as sourced somewhere else, such. I'm confused. Why does it matter if you are DF or not? If the packets are just coming in, there does not need to be a prefix in the table. If duplex communication is required (e.g. spam runs), a prefix need to be in the table whether you have a 0/0 or not. We know spammers have done runs by announcing a block (which gets it into the DFZ if it is not filtered properly), send spam, pull prefix. So again, why does it matter if you have a default route or not? > I also think a central blacklist a la spamhaus for networks makes > sense. See Team Cymru. -- TTFN, patrick

4 3

RE: was bogon filters, now "Brief Segue on 1918"
by Scott Weeks 06 Aug '08

06 Aug '08

--- darden(a)armc.org wrote: Most organizations that would be doing this would not randomly pick out subnets, if I understand you. They would randomly pick out a subnet, then they would sub-subnet that based on a scheme. ----------------------------------------------- One way to do it... In picking out 1918 space for a network, I happened to notice it was 2:45pm. I randomly picked 20 minutes less and came up with 10.245.225. Then I started going lower as everyone seems to start lower and then goes higher. 10.245.225.0/24, 10.245.224.0/24, etc. Within those (and the larger subnets) I chose to fill out the blocks based on a scheme. So far, no network has used these ranges and we've connected to many. scott

1 0

Is Usenet actually dead?
by Jay R. Ashworth 06 Aug '08

06 Aug '08

Opinion pieces in Wired and AG's grandstanding by throwing babies out with bathwater notwithstanding, a query from a cow-orker caused me to wonder: is there still anyplace to get a Usenet feed from these days that isn't {Giga,Super,etc}News? I want to pull maybe 30 or 40 tech groups into my own server for the 5 or 6 people in my IT group. In lieu of How It Used To Be, does anyone have data or anecdotes on which of the commercial providers will let me run a server in-house? Off-list is fine; I can summarize if anyone really cares anymore. :-) Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra(a)baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com '87 e24 St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274 Those who cast the vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything. -- (Josef Stalin)

6 6

Yahoo mail abuse contact?
by Jay R. Ashworth 05 Aug '08

05 Aug '08

Randy Cassingham at This Is True is complaining in his newsletter that he has something like 15K undeliverables to Yahoo email addresses, because, as he understands it, some of those people clicked Yahoo's 'This is Spam' button, and he can't find a way off the list. Anyone got a pointer to Yahoo closed-loop stuff I can point him at? Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra(a)baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com '87 e24 St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274 Those who cast the vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything. -- (Josef Stalin)

2 2

Level3 tries cell-phone style billing scam on customers
by Patrick Giagnocavo 05 Aug '08

05 Aug '08

Today I looked at my most recent bill from Level3. They are now assessing a 2.5% surcharge, which is listed as "Taxes" on the bandwidth bill I have. In the state of PA, telecoms services are explicitly not taxable. When you call Level3 billing, they admit in their recorded message it is not a tax at all, but a surcharge, and if you want to dispute it you are supposed to quote back their own contract terms to them via email (i.e. you cannot reach a human). I would expect this kind of scamminess from Verizon's cell-phone billing, but a contract is a contract and I can see no provision for arbitrarily tacking on fees, illegally labeling them as "taxes" and then putting the onus on you to prove that they can't charge you. Anyone else seeing this same behavior from Level3? (It seems that the larger a telecom company gets, the more they want to act like a scum-sucking ILEC.) --Patrick

15 17

ARIN Advisory Council wants your input.
by Leo Bicknell 05 Aug '08

05 Aug '08

Dear NANOG Community: ARIN has two proposals currently active that may have significant operational impact on *your network* as the IPv4 free pool depletes. 2008-2 "IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal" which would allow the transfer of the right to use an IP block. 2008-5 "Dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6 deployment" would set aside some IPv4 space to be used only to assist in the transition to IPv6. Please see http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/proposal_archive.html for complete information. The place where discussions on proposed ARIN policies takes place is the ARIN Public Policy Mailing list <ppml(a)arin.net>. You're encouraged to join the list, and observe or participate as you see fit. Additionally, you're encouraged to attend the ARIN meeting which will be colocated with the NANOG meeting this fall in Los Angeles. The Advisory Council has the task of editing proposal 2008-2. There are many complex technical and political considerations that are related to this proposal, and the ARIN Advisory Council values the input of all community members and stakeholders. The ARIN Advisory Council will shortly be publishing a questionnaire on ppml@ to help gauge community sentiments on the aforementioned considerations. In order to keep a lid on ballot box stuffing activities, ppml subscribers will each be given a token to allow them to weigh in once on the survey. The survey is anonymous; no record of how or whether particular individuals responded will be preserved. If you'd like to be in on this survey, *now* is the time to subscribe to ppml(a)arin.net. Information on how to subscribe is located at http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html Thank you for your time and input, on behalf of the ARIN Advisory Council. --- Leo Bicknell, ARIN Advisory Council Chair -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell(a)ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/

3 2

EFF tool to check bandwidth throttling
by Gadi Evron 05 Aug '08

05 Aug '08

Story is here: http://www.webmonkey.com/blog/Switzerland%3A_EFF_Software_Helps_Track_ISP_B… The tool is called... Switzerland. Gadi.

3 2

Software router state of the art
by Zed Usser 05 Aug '08

05 Aug '08

Hi all! There's been some discussion on the list regarding software routers lately and this piqued my interest. Does anybody have any recent performance and capability statistics (eg. forwarding rates with full BGP tables and N ethernet interfaces) or any pointer to what the current state of art in software routers is? - Zed

33 56